Under the Gang of 8’s backroom immigration deal with Senators Schumer, Corker and Hoeven, formerly illegal immigrants who are amnestied will be eligible to work, but will not be eligible for ObamaCare. Employers who would be required to pay as much as a $3,000 penalty for most employees who receive an ObamaCare healthcare “exchange” subsidy, would not have to pay the penalty if they hire amnestied immigrants.

Consequently, employers would have a significant incentive to hire or retain amnestied immigrants, rather than current citizens, including those who have recently achieved citizenship via the current naturalization process.

Beginning in January, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees, that do not currently offer healthcare benefits that are considered “acceptable” by the Obama administration, must pay a penalty if at least one of their workers obtains insurance on a new government-run “exchange.” The penalty can be as much as $3,000 per employee.

Many employers have been preparing to cope with the new regulations by slashing the hours of full-timers to part-time status. Since “full-time,” in the language of ObamaCare, is averaging 30 hours per week, employers will, in general, receive the penalty if they have 50 or more employees who are working an average of 30 hours per week.

If the immigration bill becomes law, many employers could receive incentives of hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire amnestied immigrants over American citizens. In addition, these newly legalized immigrants could work “full-time,” an advantage for companies and businesses as well, while employers could lay off or diminish to “part-time” status, American workers.

At the moment, there is just one, singular force holding back the IRS from making an all-out, systematic assault on conservative Americans as a way of life in this country. That force is the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Were the body not in GOP hands, the IRS targeting of a significant number of citizens for their political beliefs would have already fallen from the headlines. No hearings would be held. No one would be asked to resign. Or if they were, it would only be for show, as the agency continued to target anti-government Americans with Washington’s tacit approval.

Such a one-party system can be arranged, starting this week, as the Senate begins debating the immigration bill. It’s merely a matter of demographics. If amnesty is given to 11 million illegal aliens by Congress, the shift to an America one-party state will accelerate at warp speed.

That’s because the amnesty isn’t really for 11 million people, but for over 30 million. If amnesty for the 11 million illegal aliens currently in the country passes, within a decade, Rosemary Jenks, a lawyer with NumbersUSA tells me, at least 17 million additional people will qualify for permanent legal status, the first step in the pathway to citizenship. They will come as part of the “family unification” process that will allow today’s illegal aliens to bring their family members here. These people would be eligible to enter the country not decades from now, but in the decade after the immigration bill as currently proposed in the Senate passes. Jenks says her estimate of close to 30 million illegals and their families gaining permanent legal status within the coming decade is actually conservative.

[…] Republicans and conservatives like to kid themselves that the values they hold in common with largely Hispanic illegal aliens of today could somehow make them competitive with this demographic if they mollified them with amnesty, but that won’t work.

A mind-blowing 75 percent of Hispanics tell Pew they want bigger government with more services. Contrast that with just 41 percent of the American public that says it wants bigger government with more services. (Some 45 percent of the general American population wants smaller government with fewer services. For Hispanics, it’s 19 percent.)

This Hispanic love affair with big government isn’t a short-term result of the Great Recession. It isn’t a temporary product of the first-generation poverty; immigrants, legal or otherwise, have always struggled through in America. This affection for big government is uniquely cultural for Hispanics, and so strongly embedded that it apparently persists for generations.

Some 81 percent of first-generation Hispanic immigrants tell Pew pollsters they prefer big government. In the second generation, it’s 72 percent. By the third generation, the number is just shy of 60 percent. Contrast that, again, with the mere 41 percent of the general American population that feels the same.

Conservative or Republican candidates have no way to win this class of voter except to offer him an all-powerful government that provides for more of his needs than the one their Democratic opponent is offering. Otherwise, they’ll lose large portions of this vote — for generations. Once former illegal immigrants start voting, an amnesty granted a decade before by a bipartisan majority will be but a distantmemory.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate — not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

[…] In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party’s entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don’t want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

[…] The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was “scratchy towels.”)

Also, note that Pew asked about “immigration,” not “amnesty.” Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it — by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren’t low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she’d like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people’s houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

As shown by demographer Eric Kaufman of the University of London, religious couples across all cultures are for obvious reasons (including but not limited to abortion) having more children per family than are the secular-irreligious, whose birthrates are below replacement — which means a declining population.

“After 2020,” says Kaufman, the devoutly religious of all faiths “will begin to tip the culture wars to the conservative side.”

The liberal-counterculture Democrats will of course continue fighting this war in the schools and through the media, but have only one major demographic weapon to counter the fertility gap that is working relentlessly against them.

That weapon is illegal immigration. As the population trends move steadily conservative, the liberals must bring into the country and enfranchise new voters who will reliably cast Democratic ballots.

That, and that alone, is the real issue in the battle over immigration and why the Democrats are so bent on gaining amnesty for illegals. All the rest is window dressing.

The Government has washed our nation out to a sea of debt to other nations. They have created a culture of falsely believing that all life choices should equal the same financial outcome for everyone, and that everyone who believes they are due material wealth ought to have it. Children have become an “expensive burden” we seek to avoid, but debt for personal expenditures and entitlement programs are not offensive today. The common idea is that “Children are soooo Expensive!”

In our culture, we have chosen lifestyle of debt, life-long entitlement mentality and lavish living. Frugality of past generations is largely gone. Some of the poorest people appear to be able to afford Smart Phones. Priorities are definitely skewed.

There is certainly nothing wrong with nice things, beautiful homes, etc. In fact, having ambition to succeed is inherently American. However there is something decidedly different about the last two generations of Americans. The last two generations have decided to pursue these material and temporal possessions at the expense of their children, and their eternal Christian inheritance. The other problem is that very few families can actually afford to live this lifestyle, regardless of how many children they have. Most people, right out of the gate into adulthood, begin their lives in debt. They begin either in debt themselves for college, or living a lifestyle sustained by the help or debt of their own parents.

This has left a huge societal impact, because Christian families are simply not having children anymore, because of the misguided belief that their single most important contribution to their children is what they can give to them materially speaking. With fewer Christians raising their children in an intact Christian home, fewer responsible, hard working, and freedom-loving adults are being set out into society. We can clearly see the impact on our freedoms and our government and society since the nation began forfeiting children in favor of debt.

Since this has culturally become the norm, there are several societal prerequisites to qualifying to have children. Notice none of them are of eternal benefit for others, or for ourselves. This means that what society deems of value, God has spoken and said is largely worthless..even the vast educations..etc. Again, goals and accomplishment are not worthless or evil. Parents inherently want a good future for their children, and often will sacrifice to help obtain that. However, if parents put more stock into ensuring their children have all their whims met, rather than raising solidly grounded, disciplined and responsible children, we have products of their misguided efforts abounding. The pursuit of these idols of wealth above eternal perspectives, or if they are pitted against raising any children for the Kingdom, then they limit the ability of people to raise children fully for the Lord and to stand on principle in his or her nation.

Well-known TV presenter and environmental activist Sir David Attenborough has a dire warning for humanity – we need to die off of our own volition or mother nature will do the job for us.

Attenborough, famous for hosting numerous nature documentaries over the span of the past six decades, told Britain’s Radio Times that humans are a plague on the earth and the only way to save the planet is to limit human population growth.

“We are a plague on the earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” Attenborough said.

“Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”

Attenborough is best known for his “Life on Earth” series of wildlife documentaries, as well as for a previous statement extolling the virtues of saving the environment by eliminating people.

“Maybe it is time that instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment,” Attenborough is widely quoted to have said in a letter to John Guillebaud, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London.

Paul Ehrlich, the doomsday biologist who coined the term “The Population Bomb” more than 40 years ago with a book of the same name, says the world now faces “dangerous trends” of global climate change and overpopulation, which threaten our extinction.

Reducing the number of people is still the answer to civilization’s woes, Ehrlich and his wife Anne wrote in anarticle published Jan. 9 by London’s Royal Society.

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied,” Ehrlich wrote.

Ehrlich spelled out exactly what he meant in an interview with a liberal blog/news site called Raw Story.

“Giving people the right to have as many people, as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” the Web site quoted Ehrlich as saying.

“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich added.

How much you wanna bet this guy believes it’s a mother’s “right” to murder her unborn child….just not to give birth to him/her if he/she happens to expand your family larger than some bureaucrat with a god complex thinks it should be?

Nor does it seem to matter that attempts at population control have only resulted in outcomes such as China’s oppressive and coercive one-child policy, which, coupled with a cultural preference for boys, is not only decimating the country’s demographics, but causing the sex-selective abortion of millions of baby girls.

Fortunately, pro-life advocates succeeded yesterday in halting the Obama Administration’sattempt to include abortion in the list of rights protected by the United Nations. This week, we can hope they will continue to make progress toward protecting lives in the United States.

It’s refreshing to see a celebrity using their influence to draw attention to REAL human rights abuses.

While Hollywood starlets are pledging allegiance to Obama and decrying the ridiculously contrived “war on women” (asking women to pay for their own birth control? Oh, the horror!), Christian Bale has been bringing attention the work of Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese lawyer who was brutally beaten and isolated under house arrest for defending women who were being kidnapped and forced to undergo abortions against their will – their babies ripped from their wombs and murdered.

Last year, Bale tried to visit Chen while he was in China promoting a movie. He got no further than the edge of the village before Chinese officials roughed him up with his camera crew and chased them out of the area. Chen miraculously escaped a few months later and was able to gain asylum with his wife and children in the U.S., although his mother and brother have suffered retaliatory abuses back home in China.

On Thursday actor Christian Bale presented blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng with an award at the annual gala of Human Rights First. In December 2011, while Chen was still in China under house arrest, Bale attempted to visit Chen but was roughed up by thugs, who prevented him from visiting Chen’s village. Bale said at that time, “What I really wanted to do was shake the man’s hand and say ‘thank you,’ and tell him what an inspiration he is.”

Chen dramatically escaped house arrest and arrived in the United States in May 2012. The two men met for the first time tonight, when Bale presented Chen with the award.

Bale praised Chen for his bravery and for symbolizing the hopes of the people of China to live in freedom. Significantly, Bale also highlighted Chen’s fight against forced abortion in China. Bale stated,

“He [Chen] had exposed a program of forced abortion and sterilization in Shandong. A program of forced abortion means that women are being dragged from their homes against their will. They are being forced to have abortions, sometimes late-term — imagine that — with some women reportedly dying in the process. Now this is true horror. And in this insane world, this man, Chen, who was helping these women — who was living by some of the most simple, brave and universally admired values – values that we teach our children every day, and helping our fellow man – for this, this man was imprisoned and beaten for over four years.”

Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, stated, “Chen Guangcheng is a towering champion of human rights, who with incomparable courage, stood alone against the Chinese totalitarian regime. The women of China and the world will long remember his bravery on their behalf.”

“At the same time,” Littlejohn added, “Christian Bale has become a human rights champion in his own right. He risked his safety to visit Chen last December. His attack by Chinese thugs brought visibility to Chen’s case. This visibility greatly helped the international effort to free Chen. And Bale is brave to condemn the practice of forced abortion in China. Women’s Rights Without Frontiers salutes both men.”

Is there any more fundamental human right than the right to life? How about freedom of speech and petition?

Those who consider themselves “experts” on human rights want to make it an international crime to organize, lobby or speak out for pro-life causes. That’s what they call “human rights”: suppression of free speech and political activism for causes they disagree with.

The recently re-appointed UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, has issued a document calling for governments to criminalise organised opposition to abortion by non-governmental groups such as pro-life lobbyists or even family members. The UN Human Rights Council published its “technical guidance” to address maternal mortality and morbidity in July, to “assist policymakers in improving women’s health and rights.”

The document starts from the abortion industry’s assertion that the best way to reduce maternal mortality is to introduce legalised abortion and reduce legal and other restrictions on abortion. Under the “rights-based” approach to women’s health care, the document says, states are “obliged” to use “maximum available resources” to “protect against interference with sexual and reproductive health rights by third parties by enforcing appropriate laws, policies, regulations and guidelines.”

“There is a strong presumption against any retrogressive measures in relation to sexual and reproductive health,” the document continues.

“States are responsible for exercising due diligence, or acting with a certain standard of care, to ensure that non-governmental actors, including private service providers, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of health-related goods and equipment, as well as community and family members, comply with certain standards.”

Laws and policies that impede access to “sexual and reproductive health services” must be changed, Pillay said. These include laws “criminalizing certain services only needed by women,” laws and policies allowing “conscientious objection of a provider to hinder women’s access to a full range of services,” and “laws imposing third-party authorization for access to services by women and girls”. This list, if the advice were to be taken by the British government, would automatically erase nearly all the remaining legal restrictions on abortion such as the need for two doctors to sign a consent form.

“In other words” said Pat Buckley, Human Rights Council lobbyist for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, “Ms. Pillay is seeking to make effective opposition to abortion provision unlawful on the part of parents; and to criminalize health professionals, administrators and NGOs (like SPUC) who seek to oppose abortion provision – including abortion provision to children under the age of consent.”

It’s long past time to defund the embarrassing sham known as the U.N. All they’re good for anymore is providing a veneer of legitimacy for tyrannical and ant-American/anti-Israel regimes, and siphoning national sovereignty to international bureaucrats.

Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

It says that all health care plans in the United States–except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se–must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”

In practical terms, “all women with reproductive capacity” means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.

[…] HHS said nothing about restricting the provision of these free “preventive services” to women who were 18 or older, or 21 or older, or even 15 or older. The regulation simply said “all women with reproductive capacity.”

However, states have varying laws on the age of consent. CNSNews.com took a look at Oregon and its rule of consent for sterilization–one of the free services required by the Obama administration’s regulation.

In Oregon, the age of informed consent is 15, and the law and rules on sterilization are detailed in theOregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 436.205 to 436.335.

Under Oregon law, girls from 15 years of age and up are given complete control over whether to be sterilized or not. The parents or guardians of a minor girl–between 15 and 18–can neither grant nor deny consent for a sterilization.

This is the natural progression of a self-centered culture that devalues human life and treats children like a burden, a commodity to be traded, a disposable accessory to personal fulfillment, or a parasite to avoid at all costs.

No society can long survive with less than a 2.1 replacement birth rate, and the US is already below that.

So, what does sterilization do to a woman? And why does Obama want all women “with reproductive capacity” to be offered one for free?

Specifically, sterilization mutilates part of a woman’s body so it can no longer carry out its natural and healthy function.

By analogy, if a doctor severed a woman’s optic nerve her eyes would no longer see. Here, a doctor severs a woman’s fallopian tubes so her womb can no longer conceive a child.

Obama manifestly believes offering this particular mutilation free of charge to all women — but not men — is good. But why?

Human beings often sterilize dogs and cats, presumably because they do not believe canines and felines can develop disciplined reproductive habits and they see the proliferation of puppies and kittens as bad. But when human beings fix dogs and cats, they do not focus exclusively on one gender. Male dogs and cats are at least as likely as females to get their reproductive organs short-circuited.

Does the Obama administration look at women — but not men — as creatures akin to dog and cats? Does it believe women lack the hearts and minds and souls to fully control the destiny of their own families? Do they see the proliferation of human babies as bad?

After Obama signed Obamacare, his Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a federally funded committee at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recommend a “preventive services” regulation for women.

In its subsequent report, this committee explained its recommendation for what became the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate in an eight-page section titled, “Preventing Unintended Pregnancy and Promoting Healthy Birth Spacing.”

China’s Communist Party doesn’t care about human rights or the rights of women. All they care about is how they’ve been embarrassed by their evil deeds being brought to light, and they will do everything they can get away with to punish the whistle blowers.

The family of a woman who was victimized by a shocking forced abortion at seven months of pregnancy now faces harassment and potential violence.

As LifeNews reported, Chinese officials apologized to a woman who was forced to undergo an abortion at seven months of pregnancy and reportedly suspended three family planning officials after gruesome photos of the mother and her dead unborn baby went viral on the Internet. Now, human rights campaigners say the woman and her family face more persecution.

Kat Lewis of the Chinese human rights watchdog All Girls Allowed, informed LifeNews late Monday that friends of the woman, Feng Jianmei, told her that local officials have drastically changed their tone following the apology.

“They ran her husband, Deng Jiyuan, out of the village and we haven’t yet been able to reach him. They’ve also labeled Ms. Feng a “traitor,” and posted signs outside her home in warning,” Lewis explained. “In the photo right, some men in the village are carrying banners that urge others to “beat the traitor mercilessly” and ‘drive them out of the village.”

“Sometimes it’s hard to believe this is happening—and just as hard to believe that officials have largely succeeded in keeping it quiet,” she said.

In the wake of international coverage of the gruesome forced abortion committed on Chinese woman Feng Jianmei, another woman has stepped forward to share her story of the brutality of China’s one-child policy.

Feng Jianmei’s story burst into the international spotlight earlier this month after a photograph of her lying next to the corpse of her forcibly aborted 7-month-old unborn baby began circulating on the internet. While Chinese officials issued an “apology” to Feng for the abortion, reports since indicate that she and her family are being hounded by the government, while she has been labeled a “traitor.”

Now Zhang Wen Fang, 43, has risked retribution from the government by stepping forward to tell Chai Ling of the human rights organization All Girls Allowed about how she lost both her baby and her livelihood when officials forced her into a hospital for surgery four years ago.

According to Zhang, on May 23rd, 2008, when she was nine months pregnant, at least eleven Family Planning officials entered her home while her husband was away. Eight or nine men and three women dragged her into a van and took her to the People’s Hospital, where they induced labor despite her protests. At 8 p.m. they tried to inject an unknown chemical into her stomach, and Zhang resisted: “I pulled the needle out,” she said. “But then six men held me down so that they could give me the injection with a second needle.” Afterwards, they kept her in a room and did not let her family know where she was.

On May 25th, Zhang began to suffer contractions and then her water broke. She remembers feeling panic: “I was saying, ‘Help, help!’ but they ignored me and wouldn’t even let me out of the room.” Shortly after, she lost consciousness.

When Zhang woke up on May 26th, she was in extreme pain—and her baby was gone. “When I asked the officials and doctors what happened to the baby, if it was alive or dead, they would not tell me.” Chai Ling asked Zhang how she felt after the ordeal, and she broke down in tears. “I often have dreams about the baby,” said Zhang. “In those dreams, a child is looking at me and crying, asking, ‘Mommy, can you save me?’”

But officials did not stop there. They also removed Zhang’s uterus. The next morning, they forced Zhang’s mother to sign a form accepting that her daughter’s uterus was gone. Subsequent medical examinations revealed that the hospital had also removed her cervix, fallopian tubes, and right ovary.

Before the incident, Zhang was an entrepreneur. She began a successful trucking business and was making 1,000 RMB ($157 USD) per day. But she suffered major complications when doctors removed her uterus and is now confined to a wheelchair with severe kidney malfunction. She had to close her business because she can no longer move freely, and her marriage also broke down under the strain. “After suffering much harassment and beatings from the Family Planning Committee people, my husband left me,” said Zhang.

Zhang tried to petition the government about the incident, but Mr. Guo, the Deputy Minister of the Family Planning Committee in Hong Hu, was reportedly defiant. “I removed the uteruses of one thousand women, and no one dared to say a word to me,” Zhang reports him as saying.

According to the China-based human rights organization 64Tianwang, a Chinese woman was forcibly aborted at seven months of pregnancy on June 3, 2012. 64Tiangwang’s report was accompanied by a graphic photograph of the alleged victim of the abortion on a hospital bed, with her dead child next to her.

The human rights group claims the woman, Feng Jianmei, was beaten and dragged into a vehicle by a group of Family Planning Officials while her husband, Deng Jiyuan, was out working.

The officials asked for RMB 40,000 in fines from Feng Jianmei’s family. When they did not receive the money, the officials forcibly aborted Feng at seven months, laying the body of her aborted baby next to her in the bed.

64Tiangwang said Feng is under medical treatment in Ankang City, Zhenpin County, Zengjia Town, Yupin village.

“This is an outrage,” said Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. “No legitimate government would commit or tolerate such an act. Those who are responsible should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. WRWF calls on the United States government and the leaders of the free world to strongly condemn forced abortion and all coercive family planning in China.”

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson to ask if he believed that religious liberty was an unalienable right granted by God that could not be revoked by government. President Jefferson declared that the Baptists need not fear because the First Amendment had created a “wall of separation” between Church and State.

The Danbury Baptists, as Bible-believing Christians, knew as well as Thomas Jefferson that Jesus had declared that there were two great commandments: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” The secularization of the State removed the U.S. from any jurisdiction over the first great commandment to love God and confined it strictly to addressing the second commandment dealing with how men treated one another. The U.S. demoted the State and declared theological competence to be utterly outside State expertise, thus preventing an “American Inquisition” that persecuted people for their religious convictions. Clearly, Mr. Jefferson was making clear to the Baptists that the “wall of separation” was designed to protect Religion from the State, not to protect the State from Religion.

President Obama shattered this two-century consensus. He mandated that Catholics must violate their religious convictions to pay premiums for health care plans that cover contraception, abortion-inducing drugs such as Ella, and sterilization, all of which Catholic doctrine teaches to be harmful and immoral. Those who refuse to comply will be persecuted by crippling fines. […]

The president targeted contraception because it is the most countercultural doctrine of the Catholic Church, a pre-selected weak point in the “wall of separation” between Church and State. The president did not count on the fact that Americans of all faiths who may disagree on contraception are not willing to sit by and watch the Obama Inquisition. They know that if the “wall of separation” is breached on contraception, their own religious convictions could be next.

Secular sharia, the imposition of secular fundamentalism on people of Christian faith, is now the law in what used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Secular sharia has its cleric, Imam Obama, who has issued a fatwa to all Christian employees in America. (To be explicitly clear, I am not implying that the president is a Muslim. I’m talking here about a secular agenda with striking similarities to Muslim sharia.) And the fatwa is eerily similar to Islamic tyranny. In Obama’s case, the three choices American Christians are given are convert, submit, or go to prison. President Obama won’t kill you, but he will send you to jail.

Choice one is to convert to secular fundamentalism and its utter disregard for the sanctity of human life.

Choice two, if choice one is unacceptable, is to submit by paying the equivalent of the jizya, the fine Commissar Sebelius will impose on you if you do not obey the diktats of the regime.

Asma Uddin, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, has calculated the cost to a religious organization that will not convert but meekly pays jizya.

As Ms. Uddin put it in testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, “[A] charitable organization with 100 employees will have to pay the federal government $140,000 per year for the ‘privilege’ of not underwriting medical services it believes are immoral.”

Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational Christian college, will have to cough up $500,000 in protection money because of the size of its faculty and student body.

Choice three, if choices one and two are unacceptable for reasons of conscience and Christian principle, is prison. Pay the fine or go to jail.

This fatwa is now in effect. Christian businessmen do not get the one year reprieve explicitly Christian organizations get, so they must submit to secular sharia this very year or go to jail.

Imam Obama has issued his fatwa imposing secular sharia on America’s Christians. The moment of decision for people of conscience and Christian conviction has arrived. What will they do?

So Secretary Sebelius is essentially admitting that the Obamacare mandate is a form of forced participation in government-sanctioned population control?

The way these people’s minds work is downright sick. They view individuals in light of their value to the state, not as human beings. In this case, people are a drain on the welfare state because of the cost to cover their health care, so fewer is better.

Clearly ignored is how much value every individual adds to society through the ways that they labor and create and come up with new ideas, the taxes that they pay and charitable activities they engage in…and in plenty of other ways that can never be measured by cold-hearted, calculating central planners.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

On a side note, who exactly does Sebelius think is going to pay for all those unsustainable Medicare and Social Security payments the Left is so enamored with, if there are fewer workers and taxpayers to pay into a system overburdened by an aging population? Will rationing boards and “death panels” pay for themselves through a reduction in the number of seniors, too?

This pretty much sums up Leftist ideology: the government’s “right” to force one citizen to pay for services for another citizen trumps the TRUE, God-given, unalienable rights recognized by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured.

On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion.

“I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?”

“Oh absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine.

“No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.”

And that, boys and girls, is why no citizen should be forced to pay for the health care of another. Let every citizen purchase insurance or pay providers directly according to their own conscience and preferences, and nobody’s unalienable rights will be violated.

This blog is a labor of love for you, the reader who loves this country and wants to stay informed of the threats to our liberty and how to make a difference. I receive no compensation for blogging and pay for web services out of our family budget. Would you consider making a small donation to help? Just like the fight for liberty, every little bit makes a difference!

Note: Please keep your comments respectful and relevant to the topic at hand. I will not approve ad hominem attacks or profanity. Nor will I approve comments by advertisers using their business or product and hyperlink as their username. This blog is not a forum for free advertising.